Curtis and Secretary, Department of Social Services (Social services second review)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Social Services & Child Support Division (SSCSD) affirming the rejection of Mr Curtis's claim for a Disability Support Pension (DSP). Mr Curtis had lodged a claim for DSP, listing several medical conditions including back injury, neck injury, knee problems, and major depression. His claim was initially rejected on the basis that his impairments did not attract 20 points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables. This decision was subsequently affirmed by an Authorised Review Officer (ARO) and then by the SSCSD.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Curtis's impairments attracted 20 impairment points or more under the relevant Impairment Tables within the relevant period, and if so, whether he had a continuing inability to work within two years of that period. The Tribunal was also required to consider whether Mr Curtis had actively participated in a program of support (POS), as this was a condition for establishing a continuing inability to work.

The Tribunal considered the medical evidence relating to Mr Curtis's back condition, noting reports from 1996 and 1997 which indicated significant spinal issues and recommendations for surgical intervention. However, it was noted that Mr Curtis had not consulted a specialist for almost 20 years prior to his DSP claim. Crucially, the Tribunal found that Mr Curtis could not be found to have a continuing inability to work because he had not actively participated in a program of support. Consequently, he did not satisfy the legislative requirement under section 94(1)(c) of the Act.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the SSCSD's decision, concluding that Mr Curtis did not qualify for DSP because he did not meet the 20-point threshold under the Impairment Tables and had not demonstrated a continuing inability to work due to his lack of active participation in a program of support.